Next Article in Journal
Towards Personalized Treatment and Molecular Research on Gastrointestinal Tumors
Previous Article in Journal
Matricellular Proteins in the Homeostasis, Regeneration, and Aging of Skin
Previous Article in Special Issue
Novel Genetic Loci from Triticum timopheevii Associated with Gluten Content Revealed by GWAS in Wheat Breeding Lines
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 24
Issue 18
10.3390/ijms241814275
Review Report
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Genetic Parameter and Hyper-Parameter Estimation Underlie Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Bread Wheat

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24(18), 14275; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241814275
by Mohammad Bahman Sadeqi 1, Agim Ballvora 1,*, Said Dadshani 2 and Jens Léon 1
Reviewer 1:
Shibo Wang
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24(18), 14275; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241814275
Submission received: 8 August 2023 / Revised: 7 September 2023 / Accepted: 14 September 2023 / Published: 19 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Breeding and Genetics of Wheat Crops)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this study, 9 genomic selection methods were used. BSLMM (Bayesian Sparse Linear Mixed Models) is also a good prediction method with high accuracy. Do you think if it is better to add it in this study?

The authors mentioned cross-validation in genomic selection. Do you think if the replicates are needed to make the results more reliable?

The description of package for each method should be added in this paper.

 

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

We are very grateful for the reviews provided by the editors and each of the reviewers of this manuscript. It was your valuable and insightful comments that led to possible improvements in the current version. We have carefully considered the comments and tried our best to address every one of them. We have subjected our manuscript to extensive editing of English language and it has been completely rewritten again. We hope the manuscript after careful revisions meet your high standards. The authors welcome further constructive comments if any. Please, below we provide the point-by-point responses to the comments in blue.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Figure 4 a and 4 b are unreadable. The legend has been cut out almost all of the figures. 

There is no figure number for the figure comparing predictive values and true values of NUE. Also, there seems to be no relationship between the predicted NUE and the true NUE, so I have doubts about the usefulness of the model.

Almost every sentence needs to be rewritten. I would suggest that the authors use the spelling and grammar tools.

Author Response

We are very grateful for the reviews provided by the editors and each of the reviewers of this manuscript. It was your valuable and insightful comments that led to possible improvements in the current version. We have carefully considered the comments and tried our best to address every one of them. We have subjected our manuscript to extensive editing of English language and it has been completely rewritten again. We hope the manuscript after careful revisions meet your high standards. The authors welcome further constructive comments if any. Please, below we provide the point-by-point responses to the comments in blue.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop